Next requirement — learning file hashes

This works as required but we can improve performance by reducing the number of times we calculate a file’s hash. Assuming each file is static — i.e., its MP3 frames will never change — then we only need to calculate its hash once.

Rather than do this every time, we could save the result somewhere — a database perhaps. Which means we are introducing new behaviour.

When producing a hash, first check whether it already exists
If it does exist, then return it
Otherwise generate it and store it for next time

But now our interface is expanding, this has a habit of getting out of control and you can end up with ten constructor arguments. This is commonly known as the “Too Many Dicks on the Dance Floor” problem.

So what’s wrong with it?

Mp3HashController is no longer composing its behaviour from one layer of abstraction. This notion of learning return values has changed that. It is now exposed to details it shouldn’t have any knowledge of let alone dependency on.

Mp3HashController is now more difficult to test, there are more paths that have to exercised though the same interface

There is new conditional behaviour here that clearly belongs on its own — clients should not even know this is happening

It is much easier to test the learning behaviour on its own — I shouldn’t have to probe a controller

I shouldn’t have to describe an object’s behaviour in terms of another objects interface, I should be able to use that object directly

I would likely have to suppress some behaviour(s) while testing others. This will be manifest itself as complicated stubbing

Lots of dependent stubbing. Each of those collaborators are actually collaborators themselves. I think this is a smell. I shouldn’t have to consider this when unit testing Mp3HashController.

There is an opportunity to introduce an abstraction here. If we consider that all Mp3HashController requires is something to get a hash, then we can actually reduce it to:

The LearninghHashRepository has the responsibility of storing any hashes that don’t exist.

This could probably be condensed even further. TrackFileFinder and StreamHasher represent the concept of obtaining the hash of a file given a track identifier, so they can be combined. This reduces LearningHashRepository to a sort of write-through cache.

Yes you can log in to your local computer via ssh with a domain account.

If it seems you can’t (i.e., your password is rejected) then you most likely need to export your user accounts and groups so cygwin can see them.

Another clue that you need to export is if you get a message like:

Your group is currently "mkpasswd". This indicates that
the /etc/passwd (and possibly /etc/group) files should be rebuilt.
See the man pages for mkpasswd and mkgroup then, for example, run
mkpasswd -l [-d] > /etc/passwd
mkgroup -l [-d] > /etc/group
Note that the -d switch is necessary for domain users.

My brother asked me this. And while I don’t know, I did discover some interesting things along the way.

An extension method is nothing more than a compiler trick. It is simply a static method that takes an instance of the type being extended as an argument. That’s it.

The sugar part is that to you as a programmer, it appears to read more naturally in some cases.

They do not have any special privileges on private or protected members and they are not analagous to ruby module mixins (because the extended class cannot invoked extension methods).

[TBD: It is interesting that instance methods are supplied “this” as their first argument, see CIL]

[TBD: It is interesting that the compiler emits a callvirt instruction even in cases where call seems more appropriate just because callvirt has a null reference check. See: Why does C# always use callvirt?]

[TBD: Extensions are really a higher level abstraction because they operate only against public interface. An extension method is a client of the object it “extends”]

Usage

[Clean code chapter 6]
Procedural code (code using data structures) makes it easy to add new functions withoutchanging the existing data structures. OO code, on the other hand, makes it easy to add new classes without changing existing functions.

The complement is also true:
Procedural code makes it hard to add new data structures because all the functions must
change. OO code makes it hard to add new functions because all the classes must change.
So, the things that are hard for OO are easy for procedures, and the things that are
hard for procedures are easy for OO!

In any complex system there are going to be times when we want to add new data
types rather than new functions. For these cases objects and OO are most appropriate. On
the other hand, there will also be times when we’ll want to add new functions as opposed
to data types. In that case procedural code and data structures will be more appropriate.

Mature programmers know that the idea that everything is an object is a myth. Sometimes
you really do want simple data structures with procedures operating on them.

[TBD: Usage — how does it fit with OO design?]

Back to the question

Still no answer.

But I can’t see any reason why the C# compiler couldn’t do the same for static constructs, but I wonder how you would express that on the extension method itself. Perhaps that’s where the ExtensionAttribute comes in. Note: It currently is illegal to use the ExtensionAttribute directly.

But if you examine the IL for an extension method itself, you’ll see it has been applied:

You may feel someone is taking things too far when you receive a set of scenarios like this:

Scenario 1: Warm Teapot

Given a Kettle of Boiling Water
When Boiling Water is poured in to the Teapot
Then it should* warm the Teapot

Scenario 2: Brewing the tea

Given a Kettle of Boiling Water
And 5 Teabags
When 5 Teabags are placed in the Teapot
And Boiling Water is poured in to the Teapot
And the Teapot is left with the above ingredients in it for 5 minutes
Then you should have Brewed Tea

Scenario 3: Pouring the tea

Given a Teapot of Brewed Tea
And a Mug with some Milk in it**
When the Brewed Tea is poured in to the Mug
Then you should have a Perfect Cup of Tea

* “Do or do not. There is no should”
** Debatable. I think we need to triangulate this, or consult the client.